Pages

Monday, June 22, 2009

What stands out in the public discourse on Iran like a wart on a baby's bottom, are the petty, peeved reactions by some Western Postmodern politicians, to wit White House and Democratic spokespersons in the US, and in the UK in an article in The Guardian, Foreign Secretary David Miliband with regard to Iranian accusations of "meddling" ...

"I reject categorically the idea that the protesters in Iran are manipulated or motivated by foreign countries."

After having railed against George Bush for ousting Saddam Hussein's fascist regime in Iraq and establishing a democracy (of sorts) in its place, pomo politicians can think of no greater sin than doing the right thing ... chase the tyrant and establish a Government by the people.

But it's more profound than that!

What the reader needs to know for a proper understanding, is that to Postmodernists democratic principles are nothing more or less than subjective, Western constructs which we're wont to foist on other peoples, whether they like them or not! That was the basis of being "against the war in Iraq".

Foisting, 'meddling' is the single most gravest sin in the Postmodern creed.

What an unholy mess these people have created in their minds! The cognitive dissonance must be deafening!

Moral equivalence is now starting to cause serious damage in the global political arena. It's the result of the relativist idea that 'eternal truths' do not exist and every view is valid from its own perspective (including Adolf Hitler's, Lenin's, Stalin's, Saddam's and Ahmadinejad's), thus throwing out the entire field of ethics! (They've shed epistemology as well, but that's for another time.)

Many more such 'ideological accidents' are bound to happen. Consider the following messive that surfaced yesterday ... it doesn't matter all that much whether the letter indeed originated at the desk of Iran's main opposition leader, Mr Mir Hossein Mousavi:

I’ve received what purports to be a statement from Mousavi’s Office in Tehran. Like everyone else covering the revolution, I get a lot of material that can’t be authenticated, and one must always take such material with a healthy dose of skepticism.

That said, the person who sent this to me is undoubtedly in touch with the Mousavi people on the ground, that much is certain. His information has been proven reliable throughout this period. So while the following open letter carefully puts distance between the author(s) and Mousavi himself, I am quite sure that at a minimum it accurately reflects the state of mind of the Mousavi people. So here you go:

From the Office of Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi

To the President of the USA, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama:

Mr. President,In the name of the Iranian people, we want you to know that when you recently made the statement “Achmadinejad or Mousavi? Two of a kind,” we consider this as a grave and deep insult, not just to Mr. Mousavi but especially against the judgment of the Iranian people, against our moral conviction and intelligence, especially those of the young generation that comprises a population of 31 million. "

It is a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom, and an unwarranted gift and even praise for Mr. Khamenei, whose security forces are now killing peaceful Iranians in the streets of every major city in the country."

Your statement misled the people of the world. It was no doubt inspired by your hope for dialogue with this regime, but you cannot possibly believe in p

romises from a regime that lies to its own people and then kills them when they demand the promises be kept."

By such statements, your administration and you discourage the Iranian people, who believe and trust in the values of democracy and freedom. We are pleased to see that you have condemned the regime’s murderous violence, and we look forward to stronger support for the rightful struggle of the Iranian people against the actions of a regime that is your enemy as well as ours. (...) >>>

A number of updates follow the open letter.

Voila, the "under the bus" phenomenon, already a key feature of the Obama administration! Relativist thinkers are no longer mentally capable of making a moral judgment. That was the whole idea behind it. Target: absolutes and 'eternal truths' like those once part of the core ideas of Judeo-Christianity; the secular sanctity of man of Humanism; or the inalienable individual rights of Classical Liberalism - all nixed as evil, Western constructs!

Underlying all that is the Postmodern premise that an objectively true world is but a figment of our imagination ... the balderdash you get when your thinking about thought states that "we are unable to see because we perceive".

"Newsmax has learned that the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010, just as protests in Iran are ramping up."

Victor Davis Hanson is offering five ways why Obama should speak out and five reasons why he has not done so. VDH nails it in the final paragraph: "His (Obama's) entire anti-Bush foreign policy is then in trouble. We’ve heard for eight years a cheap slur of “neo-cons” did it, not that in the dangerous world abroad there are no good choices, but supporting freedom is usually the better alternative if one must choose. If a peaceful democratic revolution succeeds in Iran, then what happens with “outreach” to Putin, Chavez, and Hamas? The new liberal realpolitik insisted that we don’t offer moral judgment, and was framed instead by winning the hearts and minds of tyrants through humbling ourselves and meae culpae. But if these democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and an Iran (?) were to succeed, then what? You would not go to Chavez and promise first to talk about shared colonial racist oppression, but rather say to the Venezuelan people, “We stand with you in your struggle to achieve freedom and dignity and to join the other democracies of Latin America”? That is not just in the cards, and so Iran, is well, a monkey-wrench. (...) >>>